So is President Obama hand-in-hand with Communists? This expose by the Fox News Channel regarding the “Apollo Alliance” seems to suggest so. The real question is probably whether the Apollo Alliance can be trusted, and if not, how far and how deep is the Apollo Alliance’s influence on American policy? Definitely something to look into. Thanks to Adam for the scoop.
On a lighter note, what’s with Phil Kerpen's Cheshire Cat grin at 38 seconds into the video?!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
What to do to be saved?
So you want to be saved and inherit eternal life, and want to know what to do?
The Bad News
The fact is there is nothing you can do.
The prophet Micah also wondered what he can do:
“Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:6-8).
Burnt offerings? Thousands of rams? Ten thousands of rivers of oil? Your first born child? As if we could buy God’s favour?! We cannot bribe a perfect God with material things. The last part of the text above gives some hope. Maybe we can persuade God through good works: doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly before God. While these things are good, they are still not enough.
The prophet Isaiah makes it clear:
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6). Our “righteousnesses”, in other words our good works, are like “an unclean thing” before God. Even the best we have to offer is not good enough for a perfect God.
The Apostle Paul makes it very clear: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
We have all sinned. The best we can offer is not good enough. Even if we devoted our life as did Mother Theresa, our good works are considered inept at gaining us salvation and eternal life.
The Good News
A perfect God can only accept absolute absolute perfection. Since none of us are perfect, we have nothing to offer God. Knowing this, and not wanting us to be lost, God provided the sacrifice Himself, since only a perfect God can supply a perfect propitiation.
How are we saved? We are saved when we acknowledge our helplessness at attempting to save ourselves, and then call on God to save us. This is the big difference between real Christianity and any other religion. All other religions are about the things we do. True Christianity makes it clear – there is nothing we can do that will be good enough. Our only hope is in accepting our weakness, and accepting God’s strength in our stead.
Recounts Paul: “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:9).
This acceptance of our weakness, of our imperfections, or our sinfulness; the realization that there is nothing that we can do to be saved and that our only hope is in God is called Repentance; i.e. a change of mind. We used to think that there is something that we can do, there is some kind of contribution we can make that will help in our salvation that will somehow make us good enough. Such thinking is the thinking of other religions. Christianity requires a paradigm shift: Repentance.
Once we’ve repented (i.e. accepted that only God can provide the perfect propitiation), we move on to confession. Consider confession the actual acknowledgement of your repentance. It is during confession that you tell God about all your attempts at saving yourself and all your failures (sins), and ask God to do for you what you cannot do for yourself. Through confession we actually give God permission to do for us what He is most eager to do.
Confession is what the tax-collector did: “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). In this action he acknowledged his helplessness and pleaded for God’s mercy. Jesus said about the tax-collector: “…this man went to his house justified… For every one who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 18:14).
This is it. This is how we get saved – we stop trusting in ourselves and we start trusting in God; we cease having faith in ourselves and we commence having faith in God. God promised that He will save us if we believe in the provision He made for us. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).
Since God is perfect, and the propitiation is perfect (after all, the sacrifice is God-self, incarnated in human flesh, i.e. Jesus the Christ), no amount of sin can make it of ill-effect. You cannot be too sinful for Jesus’ righteousness not to cover you.
So what about the Ten Commandments and Loving God and They Neighbour as Thyself?
Clearly these things are important, as they are reflections of God’s character. God’s character is love. In fact, God is love (1 John 4:16). By living out the Ten Commandments we are demonstrating love to God (first four commandments) and we are demonstrating love to our neighbour (remaining six commandments). But wonderful as such actions might be they should never be confused as having any merit for our salvation.
When we accept God’s great gift of grace, when we allow God into our life, a steady transformation occurs:
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3). Thus, keeping the commandments is not a duty, nor an attempt at going to heaven, but a natural outflow of our love to God. When we love God, we’re not following a law written on stone, but a law written on our hearts: “…saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33b).
I conclude with my favourite Bible passage: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). As one pastor so wonderfully summed it up: “By Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.”
God is good, Jesus lives!
The Bad News
The fact is there is nothing you can do.
The prophet Micah also wondered what he can do:
“Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:6-8).
Burnt offerings? Thousands of rams? Ten thousands of rivers of oil? Your first born child? As if we could buy God’s favour?! We cannot bribe a perfect God with material things. The last part of the text above gives some hope. Maybe we can persuade God through good works: doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly before God. While these things are good, they are still not enough.
The prophet Isaiah makes it clear:
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6). Our “righteousnesses”, in other words our good works, are like “an unclean thing” before God. Even the best we have to offer is not good enough for a perfect God.
The Apostle Paul makes it very clear: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
We have all sinned. The best we can offer is not good enough. Even if we devoted our life as did Mother Theresa, our good works are considered inept at gaining us salvation and eternal life.
The Good News
A perfect God can only accept absolute absolute perfection. Since none of us are perfect, we have nothing to offer God. Knowing this, and not wanting us to be lost, God provided the sacrifice Himself, since only a perfect God can supply a perfect propitiation.
“But this sacrifice was not made in order to create in the Father’s heart a love for man, not to make Him willing to save. No, no! “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” 2 Corinthians 5:19.” – Steps to Christ.
How are we saved? We are saved when we acknowledge our helplessness at attempting to save ourselves, and then call on God to save us. This is the big difference between real Christianity and any other religion. All other religions are about the things we do. True Christianity makes it clear – there is nothing we can do that will be good enough. Our only hope is in accepting our weakness, and accepting God’s strength in our stead.
Recounts Paul: “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:9).
This acceptance of our weakness, of our imperfections, or our sinfulness; the realization that there is nothing that we can do to be saved and that our only hope is in God is called Repentance; i.e. a change of mind. We used to think that there is something that we can do, there is some kind of contribution we can make that will help in our salvation that will somehow make us good enough. Such thinking is the thinking of other religions. Christianity requires a paradigm shift: Repentance.
Once we’ve repented (i.e. accepted that only God can provide the perfect propitiation), we move on to confession. Consider confession the actual acknowledgement of your repentance. It is during confession that you tell God about all your attempts at saving yourself and all your failures (sins), and ask God to do for you what you cannot do for yourself. Through confession we actually give God permission to do for us what He is most eager to do.
“God does not force the will of His creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently given” – Steps to Christ.God does not force the Gift of Salvation onto us; love never forces. He offers it gladly, and we are free to accept or decline it. We are free to choose life or death; however, God pleads with us to choose the former life, not the latter (Ezekial 33:11).
Confession is what the tax-collector did: “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). In this action he acknowledged his helplessness and pleaded for God’s mercy. Jesus said about the tax-collector: “…this man went to his house justified… For every one who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 18:14).
This is it. This is how we get saved – we stop trusting in ourselves and we start trusting in God; we cease having faith in ourselves and we commence having faith in God. God promised that He will save us if we believe in the provision He made for us. “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).
Since God is perfect, and the propitiation is perfect (after all, the sacrifice is God-self, incarnated in human flesh, i.e. Jesus the Christ), no amount of sin can make it of ill-effect. You cannot be too sinful for Jesus’ righteousness not to cover you.
“None are so sinful that they cannot find strength, purity, and righteousness in Jesus, who died for them. He is waiting to strip them of their garments stained and polluted in sin, and to put upon them the white robes of righteousness; He bids them live and not die.” – Steps to Christ.
So what about the Ten Commandments and Loving God and They Neighbour as Thyself?
Clearly these things are important, as they are reflections of God’s character. God’s character is love. In fact, God is love (1 John 4:16). By living out the Ten Commandments we are demonstrating love to God (first four commandments) and we are demonstrating love to our neighbour (remaining six commandments). But wonderful as such actions might be they should never be confused as having any merit for our salvation.
“There are those who profess to serve God, while they rely upon their own efforts to obey His law, to form a right character, and secure salvation. Their hearts are not moved by any deep sense of love of Christ, but they seek to perform the duties of the Christian life as that which God requires of them in order to gain heaven. Such religion is worth nothing.” – Steps to Christ.No amount of good doing contributes to what God has done for us. If it did, it would insinuate that Jesus’ sacrifice was not good enough, was not perfect. Our salvation is not Jesus’ righteousness plus some of our righteousness. It is only Jesus’ righteousness on our behalf. It is Jesus only. The only contribution we make is to accept God’s perfect salvation for us.
When we accept God’s great gift of grace, when we allow God into our life, a steady transformation occurs:
“When Christ dwells in the heart, the soul will be filled with His love, with the joy of communion with Him, that it will cleave to Him; and in the contemplation of Him, self will be forgotten. Love to Christ will be the spring of action.” – Steps to Christ.
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3). Thus, keeping the commandments is not a duty, nor an attempt at going to heaven, but a natural outflow of our love to God. When we love God, we’re not following a law written on stone, but a law written on our hearts: “…saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33b).
I conclude with my favourite Bible passage: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). As one pastor so wonderfully summed it up: “By Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.”
God is good, Jesus lives!
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
What about the people in a “wrong” church?
“…if one is, for example, a Mormon, and you believe what you're told 100%, and you're absolutely sure about it - you STILL end up in hell? …it just seems sort of unfair.”
So this is the question I received recently, and which I will try and attempt to answer. I don’t like to point fingers at specific denominations, but there are many strange denominations out there for which the question above seems relevant. In truth, I think it applies to most people in most churches – even the mainstream ones, because most churches are so far removed from true Biblical teaching that an honest Bible scholar stands confounded.
Other Sheep
I’ll start my answer by quoting Jesus: “And I have other sheep which are not of this fold: those also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).
I think the text is clear; there are other sheep in other folds (denominations, sects, even maybe religions) whom Jesus considers His sheep.
Ignorance Overlooked
My second quotations comes from Paul: “God therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent, because he has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead” (Acts 17:30, 31).
From this text it seems that in God’s mercy, God “overlooked the times of ignorance”. It appears consistent with God’s character, as I understand God. God do not judge us unfairly. We will be judged by the light we received. In other words, we are not judged by what we do not know, but by what we do know. I think it is for this reason that it is written somewhere that the (Bible) teachers and preachers will be held more accountable (because they knew more) than the laity.
The words above by Paul suggest also that once we learned a truth, we ought to live up to that Truth. Let’s say you are in a church lacking in some Biblical Truth, and you then learn a Truth; you have come out of ignorance and moved into knowledge of that Truth. Since you are not in ignorance anymore, God “…now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent…” The word “repent” is from the Greek word metanoeō, which means to “think differently afterwards”. Once you’ve moved from ignorance to knowledge of aTruth, God expects us to think differently (i.e. repent); in other words, we ought to live up to the Truth we have acquired.
Receive Plagues by Association
The third text I want to quote is from the visions shown to John the Apostle by Jesus.
“And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins, and that ye do not receive of her plagues: for her sins have been heaped on one another up to the heaven, and God has remembered her unrighteousnesses” (Revelation 18:4, 18:5).
The angel appeals to us living in the End Times to “come out of her”. The immediate context tells us who “she” is: “Babylon the great” (Revelation 18:2). In Bible prophecy a women represents a religious group. For instance, a pure woman is symbolic of God’s true followers, and an unchaste, adulterous woman is symbolic of God’s followers that became unfaithful. Babylon, in this passage, is symbolic of the religious systems (specifically the great Christian institutions), and her actions are described as follows: “For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies” (Revelation 18:3). A fitting description of what Christianity and world religions have become, making ties with kings (rules of countries, i.e. politicians) and merchants (corporate powers and businesses).
Well, the first text I quoted from Revelation suggests that we come out of Babylon, because she is going to receive “plagues”, and if we keep association with her, we will receive these plagues too. Although there is a period while God “overlooked the times of ignorance”, it seems that a time will come when Babylon will receive “plagues” and if we still find ourselves in Babylon, we will also receive these “plagues” with her. A time will come when we cannot continue to play the ignorance trump card; therefore the plea from the angel to "Come out of her, my people, that ye have not fellowship in her sins."
Ignorance Is Not a Cop-out
Another text, by Paul again, also suggests that ignorance is not always a cop-out.
“This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye should no longer walk as the rest of the nations walk in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in understanding, estranged from the life of God by reason of the ignorance which is in them, by reason of the hardness of their hearts, who having cast off all feeling, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greedy unsatisfied lust” (Ephesians 4:17-19).
Some people are ignorant because of the “hardness of their hearts.” In other words, they have hardened their hearts against Truth about God; they have deliberately resisted the Truth. Such “ignorance” will not be overlooked.
Short Answer
Will a sincere believer, whom lives up to the light he or she received, but whom happens to be in the wrong denomination, be lost? Probably not.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Religulous
Okay, so I saw Religulous (2008). After hearing so much bad rap about it, I was surprised by finding myself actually liking it. However, I didn’t find it funny. The only partially funny part of the documentary are the posters. Wasn't this film supposed to be humorous? It is after all hosted by comedian Bill Maher. For some reason I thought that comedy was the intention; but truly, I didn’t laugh once. Then again, I didn’t laugh watching Borat either – thought it was the stupidest film I’ve ever wasted time and money on. Why do I mention Religulous and Borat in the same sentence? Simple, they were both directed by Larry Charles.
Back to Religulous. I liked it because it highlights some very pertinent questions that I also ask. For instance, why do Christians believe in things that are not in the Bible? An example would be the celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25th. Or keeping Sunday holy. These observances are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but still it is practiced as Biblical truth by the majority of Christendom. And that’s, in part, why I liked Religulous. It asks some valid questions.
A theme from Religulous is how Christianity does not reflect Jesus. I think this is in part what I tried to address in a post earlier this month: Religion vs Real Christianity. Maher asks some religious figures about the example of Jesus, versus their own; comparing religious figures with rock stars, which is so contrary to Jesus. Again, good and very valid questions. Standing in front of the Vatican Maher asks: “Does that look anything, like anything Jesus Christ had in mind?” A valid question. While I don’t believe God has anything against being wealthy (there were many examples of godly and wealthy men in the Bible), it is true that many religious figures seem to be in it for the money – this is foiled sharply against the example of Jesus. If anything, the purpose of the Church is NOT to make money for itself. Instead, it ought to be a conduit of encouragement, love and grace. And money received is to be channeled into helping others, not itself.
After an interview with some Christian truckers, Maher finishes his conversation with: “Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.” How sad that there should be such a clear difference between Christians and the Christ they follow; and that the real thing is the exception, rather than the norm. It is for this reason that I often do not want to call myself a Christian. I honestly find little in common with Christianity, and the vindicative hateful “God” they represent.
For instance, in Religulous, Christians are shown with posters saying “God hates fags!” One lady announced “I don’t hate them [homosexuals]; God hates them!” (So one is to believe that, a mere mortal is more loving that the God of love?!) What these depictions show me is that these Christians do not know what the Bible teaches when read cohesively. God does not hate sinners, God hates sin; and God doesn’t hate sin arbitrarily, but because of how it hurt us or those around us. Actually, the Bible teaches the opposite of what these posters say: God loves sinners (Romans 5:8)! And speaking of homosexuals, in the Bible homosexuals are listed among a group of other sinners, like drunkards and envious people (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Why don’t we see Christians with posters shouting God hates drunkards and God hates envious people? Probably because half of them like to take to the bottle or are jealous of their neighbors. These kinds of double standards by “Christians” is a terrible blight on the religion. Jesus clearly taught not to point the finger, and on many occasions proved by word and example that He is not judgmental. Now, if a perfect person like Jesus did not judge the “sinners” of his day, who are we – full of faults and sins – to judge anybody?
I also have to agree with an Amen, when Maher says: “Two things that are completely incompatible is Christianity, as Jesus taught it, and nationalism.” This is probably one of the main purposes of this blog – my protest against Church and State. The Kingdom of God is not of this World, let us never forget it; and not try to make it otherwise.
Maher interviewed a Catholic priest at the Vatican observatory discussing religion versus science. The priest remarked: “The Scriptures are not teaching science.” How true. And that is part of the problem – people do not know how to read the Bible. I’ve written about that before too: Who Wrote the Bible? While I agree that the Bible is not a science book, I disagree with the assumption that Science and Religion are on all things mutually exclusive. There definitely are areas of overlap. And his blanket questions, like “Do you believe in Evolution?” is very much naïve on the topic. Firstly, there are many types of evolution. For instance, cosmological evolution, macro biological evolution, micro biological evolution and here we find three further types: divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. I, for instance do not believe in macro evolution, but I do believe in micro evolution. On many occasions in the documentary Maher would ask such blanket questions, and did not allow his interviewees to explain their views in full.
He also makes big deals out of strange things. For instance, the fact that the virgin birth is not recorded in all four of the Gospels is of pivotal value to Maher. Or the fact that very little is known of Jesus' childhood is heavily troublesome for Maher. Why should this be the case? Jesus’ childhood is actually of very little consequence for the Gospels. That Jesus’ birth is covered is what ought to be surprising. The Gospels (first four books of the New Testament) are not biographies, as Maher believes. A biography covers the majority of a person life. This is not what the Gospels do or intends to do. They only substantially cover the three years of Jesus’ ministry and only touch on the highlights. His criticism of the Gospel in this regard is unfounded. It’s like criticising a news article for not reading like a good screenplay.
Further, Maher addresses the great old Question of Evil: “Why doesn’t He [God] just obliterate the Devil and therefore get rid of evil in the world?” This is an old theological / philosophical question and which I addressed on this blog before as well. It is a question that Maher, who is a champion of freedom (and freedom of speech in particular), ought to be able to figure out the answer of for himself. I’ve addressed this dilemma in parts in various posts here before, but let’s try to summarize it:
God is Love and the highest value for God is Love and God wants us all to share in that Love. A requirement for Love is the Freedom of Choice. Forced love is an
oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s harassment. Forced love is not love, it’s rape. We, therefore, have freedom of choice to love or not to love. Many people choose selfishness, i.e. not to love, and the result is pain and suffering to others and ourselves. If I rape you, I have used my freedom of choice not to love you. Shockingly, God cannot do anything about it, without taking away my freedom of choice. It is all good and well to ask God to take away all the suffering in the world, but at what cost? To do so, God has to take away our freedom of choice, in which case God would not be Love, but a Tyrant.
Religulous’ reference to Christianity being a copycat religion I well addressed in my post on the Zeitgeist film, and it would seem that Religulous did exactly the same type of ridiculously lame scholarship that Zeitgeist did. Then again, that’s what one would expect from Hollywood, isn’t it?
Religulous also addresses Faith and Maher describes it as follows: “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” This is sadly, actually what most religions including the majority of Christianity does. This, of course, is not what Biblical faith involves as I explained in a recent post on "Faith". Maher praises doubt throughout the movie, saying: “Doubt is humble.” It is true in part. Admitting how little we know is humble. Not pretending to have all the answers is humble. But boasting doubt? It might be honest; I just don’t know whether it is humble.
I have a list of probably another ten points I can write about, but I think the above mentioned is enough.
To conclude, in general I liked Religulous for the simple reason that it asks some pertinent (and honest) questions. While there are some moments one could argue somewhat blasphemous, it was very clear to me that Maher actually have very high esteem for Jesus and much of his questions revolved around why Christianity are not like the "Christ" they profess. Much of the film, however, was based on the doubt of Maher (and assumingly also that of Larry Charles), and at times (deliberate?) misrepresentation of those involved. I cannot say that there was anything in this documentary that presented new questions, or facts to shake my trust in God. (It might shake one's faith in Religion, but that's nothing new -- my faith is not in Religion.)
In my opinion, a much better documentary on the topic of religious fundamentalism is CNN’s three part documentary God’s Warriors.
Comparative Religions
From one site to another, I stumbled onto this great chart that compares the main features of over 40 religions. From my quick perusal it actually looks quite objective. So far, I'm quite impressed. It would have been nice, however, if I could get it ordered according to worldview; for instance, all the pantheistic religions together, all the monotheistic religions together, etc. Nonetheless, it is still a handy chart for people like me with interest in comparative religious studies. Now this is something that I would enjoy teaching one day.
If you're not sure where you fit in, start by asking yourself what's your worldview: theistic, deistic, pantheistic, atheistic. What ever you do, don't go for the cop-out.
I used to be a pantheist (New Age). Now I'm a theist.
If you're not sure where you fit in, start by asking yourself what's your worldview: theistic, deistic, pantheistic, atheistic. What ever you do, don't go for the cop-out.
I used to be a pantheist (New Age). Now I'm a theist.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Good News Tour 2009
A series of sermons about God -- the God I believe in.
In MP3-format. Right-click and "save as".
The Good News Tour 2009
1. Is There Really a God? -- Greg Boyd
2. What I Expect from God -- Marco Belmonte
3. What is God Like? -- Herb Montgomery
4. Prove to Me God is Love -- Greg Boyd
5. So Why All the Suffering? -- Herb Montgomery
6. Scary God or Scary People? -- Brad Cole
7. What Does a Christian Look Like? -- Greg Boyd
In MP3-format. Right-click and "save as".
The Good News Tour 2009
1. Is There Really a God? -- Greg Boyd
2. What I Expect from God -- Marco Belmonte
3. What is God Like? -- Herb Montgomery
4. Prove to Me God is Love -- Greg Boyd
5. So Why All the Suffering? -- Herb Montgomery
6. Scary God or Scary People? -- Brad Cole
7. What Does a Christian Look Like? -- Greg Boyd
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Martial Law Exercise
Dear American serfs,
On July 27th through July 31st expect a martial law exercise across several states using US, Canadian, Australian, UK and corporate militaries. The National Level Exercise 2009 is in preparation for terrorists, and do not forget that you (yes you civilians) will be the test dummies. This, of course, makes complete sense, since it is in actual fact an exercise in preparation of you -- for when the day comes that you wake up and see yourselves slaves of a Big Brother state and you suddenly try to rise up against the Beast.
But don't worry; this coming couple of days is not the real thing. It is indeed just an exercise, and you will become exposed to more and more of these drills to desensitize you for the real thing.
The YouTube-video below is just to (--wet--) whet your apatite.
On July 27th through July 31st expect a martial law exercise across several states using US, Canadian, Australian, UK and corporate militaries. The National Level Exercise 2009 is in preparation for terrorists, and do not forget that you (yes you civilians) will be the test dummies. This, of course, makes complete sense, since it is in actual fact an exercise in preparation of you -- for when the day comes that you wake up and see yourselves slaves of a Big Brother state and you suddenly try to rise up against the Beast.
But don't worry; this coming couple of days is not the real thing. It is indeed just an exercise, and you will become exposed to more and more of these drills to desensitize you for the real thing.
The YouTube-video below is just to (--wet--) whet your apatite.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Religion vs. (Real) Christianity
In my one native tongue, the word “religion”, when translated directly into English, means “God-service”, i.e. serving God. If we were to ask a number of people to define religion I am certain several will say something along the lines of “rituals or systems for pleasing God.” The idea of religion being the act of “serving God” seems to be core to what we understand a religion to be. There is one exception though, and that is true Christianity. In real Christianity the focus is not on us serving God, but rather on God serving us.
Does the idea of God serving us, of God being our servant, bother you? That is a normal reaction. In this world the custom is for the weak to serve the powerful. The powerful seldom serve the weak.
Keep in mind that according to Christianity, Jesus is the Incarnation of God; in other words, Jesus is God in human form. Therefore, when we study the character of Jesus, we in fact have a case study of God’s character. What do we see when we look at the ministry of Jesus? Jesus served the people. Sometimes we think that Jesus did what He did merely as an example to us. While it is true that we can learn from Jesus’ example, that is not the reason He served the sad, the hungry, the lame, the blind, the sick and sin stained souls. He served them, because that is His character – that is God’s character.
On one peculiar occasion, Jesus started to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13). Washing someone’s feet was considered the job of the lowest servant. One of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, vehemently protested. “Lord, are you going to wash my feet? You will never wash my feet!” Jesus interrupted his tangent, explaining that if He doesn’t wash Peter’s feet, the disciple cannot be part of Him. Why? Because, accepting Jesus (i.e. accepting God), is accepting this inverted role of power: God serving us, not us serving Him.
To be a Christian is first and foremost not about us serving God, it is about accepting God’s service to us. Firstly by acknowledging God’s redemptive deed at the Cross (however we understand it); and secondly, by accepting God’s continual service to us even now. That is an essential principle of true Christianity. Flowing from this is a remarkable transformation. When we comprehend how a Being of such unfathomable magnitude and power could become our “servant”, we respond with active gratitude. Because God serves us, because God demonstrated such undeserved love to us, we want to respond in loving service back to God.
This is the difference between true Christianity and other religions that worship deities. Worshipping God, serving God, is never in an attempt to appease or influence God. It is always in response to God’s goodness toward us: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 8:5).
As Joyce Meyers like to say: Jesus did not die on the cross so that we could have a religion. He died on the cross so that we could have a relationship with Him.
Does the idea of God serving us, of God being our servant, bother you? That is a normal reaction. In this world the custom is for the weak to serve the powerful. The powerful seldom serve the weak.
Keep in mind that according to Christianity, Jesus is the Incarnation of God; in other words, Jesus is God in human form. Therefore, when we study the character of Jesus, we in fact have a case study of God’s character. What do we see when we look at the ministry of Jesus? Jesus served the people. Sometimes we think that Jesus did what He did merely as an example to us. While it is true that we can learn from Jesus’ example, that is not the reason He served the sad, the hungry, the lame, the blind, the sick and sin stained souls. He served them, because that is His character – that is God’s character.
On one peculiar occasion, Jesus started to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13). Washing someone’s feet was considered the job of the lowest servant. One of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, vehemently protested. “Lord, are you going to wash my feet? You will never wash my feet!” Jesus interrupted his tangent, explaining that if He doesn’t wash Peter’s feet, the disciple cannot be part of Him. Why? Because, accepting Jesus (i.e. accepting God), is accepting this inverted role of power: God serving us, not us serving Him.
To be a Christian is first and foremost not about us serving God, it is about accepting God’s service to us. Firstly by acknowledging God’s redemptive deed at the Cross (however we understand it); and secondly, by accepting God’s continual service to us even now. That is an essential principle of true Christianity. Flowing from this is a remarkable transformation. When we comprehend how a Being of such unfathomable magnitude and power could become our “servant”, we respond with active gratitude. Because God serves us, because God demonstrated such undeserved love to us, we want to respond in loving service back to God.
This is the difference between true Christianity and other religions that worship deities. Worshipping God, serving God, is never in an attempt to appease or influence God. It is always in response to God’s goodness toward us: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 8:5).
As Joyce Meyers like to say: Jesus did not die on the cross so that we could have a religion. He died on the cross so that we could have a relationship with Him.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Learn How to Do an Obama
Here is how it works: Contradict your administration all the time.
An example:
President Obama tells Anderson Cooper from CNN that he will look into an investigation of an Afghan massacre involving U.S. soldiers and possible war crimes: “I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have, even in war; and if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then, I think that uh, we have to know about that.” [My transcript from the interview.] (See this section from the interview on YouTube.)
Of course, this is contrary to the official standpoint of the Obama administration just two days earlier: “Obama administration officials said Friday they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces,” CBS News.
Just one example of many such cases that now have become a typical Obama-administration phenomenon.
An example:
President Obama tells Anderson Cooper from CNN that he will look into an investigation of an Afghan massacre involving U.S. soldiers and possible war crimes: “I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have, even in war; and if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then, I think that uh, we have to know about that.” [My transcript from the interview.] (See this section from the interview on YouTube.)
Of course, this is contrary to the official standpoint of the Obama administration just two days earlier: “Obama administration officials said Friday they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces,” CBS News.
Just one example of many such cases that now have become a typical Obama-administration phenomenon.
Faith
What is it? Specifically, what is faith within the Biblical context? Many people will have you believe that Christianity requires a blind faith. This is not the case. Faith, in the Bible, is not a blind surrender to superstition. God invites us: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…” (Isa 1:18). A whole book (Proverbs) in the Bible is devoted to Wisdom and throughout Scripture wisdom is praised and superstitious belief in idols (the illogical worship of inanimate objects) is scorned. Jesus talks about wise men and foolish men. In fact, Jesus is Himself described as the Word. The Greek term translated into “Word” in English is “Logos”, which means [logical] expression. Whatever faith is, it is clearly not a simpleton's acceptance of something that lacks reason; of something illogical.
So what does “faith” mean in the Bible? The first time the word faith is used in the Bible is in Deuteronomy 32:20: “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.” The Hebrew word for faith, from this passage is “'êmûn” and literally means “established”, “trusty” or “trustworthiness”.
When Jesus says in Matthew 6:30: “…if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?”, the lack of faith in this section comes from the Greek word “oligopistos”, which means “lacking in confidence”.
Referring to the centurion that asked Jesus to heal his servant by merely speaking the word, Jesus answered: “…Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:10). The term “faith” in this passage comes from the Greek “pistis” which means “persuasion”, “conviction”, usually of Truth.
The implication is not blind faith, but acceptance of a Truth after being persuaded of its validity. The centurion was not hoping on some superstitious belief, but he was convinced that Jesus could heal his servant because he knew about Jesus’ ability. He had probably heard of the many instances where Jesus healed the sick and might even have witnessed some of these miracles. He was persuaded about Jesus’ power; he was convinced of His authority over sickness.
Throughout the New Testament the word translated into faith in English is the same Greek word “pistis”, i.e. persuasion of truth, or the negative “oligopistos”, i.e. a lack in confidence -- not trusting something. A better modern translation than “faith” would probably be “trust”. Trust is something that comes from experience; to have confidence in something. That is why “faith in God” is not merely saying the words “I believe in God”, nay, true faith, is trusting God. And trusting God comes from having a relationship with Him.
So what does “faith” mean in the Bible? The first time the word faith is used in the Bible is in Deuteronomy 32:20: “And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.” The Hebrew word for faith, from this passage is “'êmûn” and literally means “established”, “trusty” or “trustworthiness”.
When Jesus says in Matthew 6:30: “…if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?”, the lack of faith in this section comes from the Greek word “oligopistos”, which means “lacking in confidence”.
Referring to the centurion that asked Jesus to heal his servant by merely speaking the word, Jesus answered: “…Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:10). The term “faith” in this passage comes from the Greek “pistis” which means “persuasion”, “conviction”, usually of Truth.
The implication is not blind faith, but acceptance of a Truth after being persuaded of its validity. The centurion was not hoping on some superstitious belief, but he was convinced that Jesus could heal his servant because he knew about Jesus’ ability. He had probably heard of the many instances where Jesus healed the sick and might even have witnessed some of these miracles. He was persuaded about Jesus’ power; he was convinced of His authority over sickness.
Throughout the New Testament the word translated into faith in English is the same Greek word “pistis”, i.e. persuasion of truth, or the negative “oligopistos”, i.e. a lack in confidence -- not trusting something. A better modern translation than “faith” would probably be “trust”. Trust is something that comes from experience; to have confidence in something. That is why “faith in God” is not merely saying the words “I believe in God”, nay, true faith, is trusting God. And trusting God comes from having a relationship with Him.
God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith. -- Steps to Christ; Chapter 12.[This little book, Steps to Christ, is basically Christianity in a nutshell. Two great chapters regarding faith is Chapter 6: Faith and Acceptance and Chapter 12: What to Do with Doubt. Or download the whole book in pdf-format here. For more formats, including audio, visit this website.]
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Critiquing America
Every month I write a lengthy letter that I send to family and friends. After my previous letter a very good (American) friend of mine emailed me, admitting that she took offence to my negative opinions of America and how the current government is addressing the economic problems.
Lest I offend any more people, I would like to say here publically, as I replied to my friend in private, that my comments on America are not critique, as much as it is vocalized observation. In other words, my purpose is not to criticize America in these letters. (For that I have this blog ;-) .) It is primarily to note the symptoms, ponder on the causes, and extrapolate possible future results.
Let me give you an example. When Zimbabwe started to feel an economic hardship they started to print extra money. This money was not based on anything real, like gold. Such printing of unsubstantiated money created inflation (i.e. you needed more money to pay for things), and the government tried to “solve” this problem by printing even more money. Again, since the money was not substantiated by something real its value decreased. A cursory look at Zimbabwe’s complete depreciation in currency is a glimpse into what will happen to the American Dollar if America continues to print more money. I’d like to mention two other observations that are underscoring the issue with this continued printing of unsubstantiated money in America. The first is the Chancellor of Germany’s critique of America’s economic plan. From experience, Germany knows all too well the type of reality where you need a wheelbarrow load of money to buy bread. The second is China, Russia, Brazil and India’s discussion of abandoning the US Dollar as the trade currency of choice. If these countries have lost faith in the American Dollar, it should say something – keeping in mind that these countries are some of the biggest exporters in the world.
My friend asked me a very serious and probably fair question: “What would YOU do instead of what is being done with the banks?” Firstly, let me not pretend to have the solutions to this problem. As I said in a previous letter, this problem is too big for any one person (i.e. Obama or any president and his cabinet) to fix. One thing I would not do is to continue to print valueless money. Printing unsubstantiated money is not solving the problem. It is merely prolonging the inevitable, and by doing so it is increasing the seriousness of the collapse when it occurs. Obama’s recent proposal to give the Federal Reserve Bank more power is another thing I would not do. The US’s Federal Reserve Bank is not “federal”, it is a private company. As I heard one guy say, the Federal Reserve Bank is as “federal” as Federal Express. Part of the mess the US is in, is because companies have gotten too much power over government. Increasing their power will increase the problem.
Also, I don’t think bailing out the these “too big to fail” companies will solve the problem, and here is why: The premise is that by helping these companies the money pumped into them will tinkle down from top-to-bottom until the common man at grassroots level benefits. This is mostly not the case. The money dumped into these companies will mostly be used to pay off the debt (often abroad). In other words, the money will not somehow soak down to the average citizen that needs it the most; instead, the money will go out of America, or save the butts of the rich elite whom have their own savings, yachts, holiday houses in tropical countries and European sports cars.
What would I do instead? Personally I would distrust these major companies, and if need be let them fail.
What I would do with all these billions of dollars in bailout money is invest from the bottom up. I’d invest in emergency projects, encourage entrepreneurial businesses, improved education, build up the infrastructure and not cut infrastructural budgets (like that of the education system, police, etc.). The basic difference between what is being done, and what I think ought to be done can best be described by an analogy of a very sick person. Currently the sick person’s symptoms are being treated. I propose that the person’s immune system be boosted. If one continue to treat the symptoms the person might superficially seem to improve (and that is what the continual printing of money will achieve in the short run), but suddenly the sickness will flare up and the inevitable will happen. (The printing of money will only go so far, until Zimbabwean results occur.) On the other hand, if you focus not on the symptoms, but on boosting the immune system, the patient will be in serious pain and suffering at first, but there is a very good chance that the person will start to heal naturally if you make sure that the causes are not still in place. This healing will not be a superficial covering of the symptoms, but actual recovery. The focus should not be on improved comfort and relief, but on actual healing.
Of course, I do not pretend to know it all – I’m not a politician or economist. I’m merely an observer.
To come back to my criticism of Obama, let me be clear that I’m not criticizing him in particular. (Again, I’m not so much a critic as an observer.) I’ve been equally critical of Bush, even more so, but for different reasons. Bush moved America towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. Obama has done very little to counter that momentum. However, I must admit that I’ve lost my faith in Obama long ago. Any true perusing of the media will reveal that what Obama says often contradicts what his administration says. It would seem that his job is mostly PR.
I do not trust politicians. I didn’t trust Bush. I do not trust Obama.
Lest I offend any more people, I would like to say here publically, as I replied to my friend in private, that my comments on America are not critique, as much as it is vocalized observation. In other words, my purpose is not to criticize America in these letters. (For that I have this blog ;-) .) It is primarily to note the symptoms, ponder on the causes, and extrapolate possible future results.
Let me give you an example. When Zimbabwe started to feel an economic hardship they started to print extra money. This money was not based on anything real, like gold. Such printing of unsubstantiated money created inflation (i.e. you needed more money to pay for things), and the government tried to “solve” this problem by printing even more money. Again, since the money was not substantiated by something real its value decreased. A cursory look at Zimbabwe’s complete depreciation in currency is a glimpse into what will happen to the American Dollar if America continues to print more money. I’d like to mention two other observations that are underscoring the issue with this continued printing of unsubstantiated money in America. The first is the Chancellor of Germany’s critique of America’s economic plan. From experience, Germany knows all too well the type of reality where you need a wheelbarrow load of money to buy bread. The second is China, Russia, Brazil and India’s discussion of abandoning the US Dollar as the trade currency of choice. If these countries have lost faith in the American Dollar, it should say something – keeping in mind that these countries are some of the biggest exporters in the world.
My friend asked me a very serious and probably fair question: “What would YOU do instead of what is being done with the banks?” Firstly, let me not pretend to have the solutions to this problem. As I said in a previous letter, this problem is too big for any one person (i.e. Obama or any president and his cabinet) to fix. One thing I would not do is to continue to print valueless money. Printing unsubstantiated money is not solving the problem. It is merely prolonging the inevitable, and by doing so it is increasing the seriousness of the collapse when it occurs. Obama’s recent proposal to give the Federal Reserve Bank more power is another thing I would not do. The US’s Federal Reserve Bank is not “federal”, it is a private company. As I heard one guy say, the Federal Reserve Bank is as “federal” as Federal Express. Part of the mess the US is in, is because companies have gotten too much power over government. Increasing their power will increase the problem.
Also, I don’t think bailing out the these “too big to fail” companies will solve the problem, and here is why: The premise is that by helping these companies the money pumped into them will tinkle down from top-to-bottom until the common man at grassroots level benefits. This is mostly not the case. The money dumped into these companies will mostly be used to pay off the debt (often abroad). In other words, the money will not somehow soak down to the average citizen that needs it the most; instead, the money will go out of America, or save the butts of the rich elite whom have their own savings, yachts, holiday houses in tropical countries and European sports cars.
What would I do instead? Personally I would distrust these major companies, and if need be let them fail.
What I would do with all these billions of dollars in bailout money is invest from the bottom up. I’d invest in emergency projects, encourage entrepreneurial businesses, improved education, build up the infrastructure and not cut infrastructural budgets (like that of the education system, police, etc.). The basic difference between what is being done, and what I think ought to be done can best be described by an analogy of a very sick person. Currently the sick person’s symptoms are being treated. I propose that the person’s immune system be boosted. If one continue to treat the symptoms the person might superficially seem to improve (and that is what the continual printing of money will achieve in the short run), but suddenly the sickness will flare up and the inevitable will happen. (The printing of money will only go so far, until Zimbabwean results occur.) On the other hand, if you focus not on the symptoms, but on boosting the immune system, the patient will be in serious pain and suffering at first, but there is a very good chance that the person will start to heal naturally if you make sure that the causes are not still in place. This healing will not be a superficial covering of the symptoms, but actual recovery. The focus should not be on improved comfort and relief, but on actual healing.
Of course, I do not pretend to know it all – I’m not a politician or economist. I’m merely an observer.
To come back to my criticism of Obama, let me be clear that I’m not criticizing him in particular. (Again, I’m not so much a critic as an observer.) I’ve been equally critical of Bush, even more so, but for different reasons. Bush moved America towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. Obama has done very little to counter that momentum. However, I must admit that I’ve lost my faith in Obama long ago. Any true perusing of the media will reveal that what Obama says often contradicts what his administration says. It would seem that his job is mostly PR.
I do not trust politicians. I didn’t trust Bush. I do not trust Obama.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Britain's Spy Chief's Cover Blown on Facebook
That's one for Facebook and zero for Lady Sawyers (wife of the [now ex] Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service). The bright Lady Sawyers posted family pictures, including that of her husband, on her Facebook account. Now the whole world knows who Britain's Spy Chief is.
From News24.Com:
Spy Chief's Cover Blown
2009-07-05 14:20
From News24.Com:
Spy Chief's Cover Blown
2009-07-05 14:20
London - The wife of the new head of Britain's spy agency has posted pictures of her husband, family and friends on internet networking site facebook, details which could compromise security, a newspaper said on Sunday.
Sir John Sawers is due to take over as head of the Secret Intelligence Service in November. The SIS, popularly known as MI6, is Britain's global intelligence-gathering organisation.
In what the Mail on Sunday called an "extraordinary lapse", the new spy chief's wife, Lady Shelley Sawers, posted family pictures and exposed details of where the couple live and take their holidays and who their friends and relatives are.
The details could be viewed by any of the many millions of facebook users around the world, but were swiftly removed once authorities were alerted by the newspaper's enquiries.
"There were fears that the hugely embarrassing blunder could have compromised the safety of Sir John's family and friends," the newspaper said.
Publishing the story on its front page and the pictures on a double-page spread, the Mail on Sunday said the information "could potentially be useful to hostile foreign powers or terrorists".
It was the latest in a string of security blunders, lapses and leaks by British officials that have embarrassed the government of embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
- Reuters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)